On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 19:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
+module_init(arc4_init);
+module_exit(arc4_exit);
I'm feelings uneasy about using the same module init/exit functions
names in arc4blk.c and arc4cip.c.
Even though it doesn't break for me on x86_64 (whether I'm compiling
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 09:49 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
+ if (mode == CRYPT_ARC4)
+ arc4_setup_iv((struct arc4_iv *)iv,
+ template[i].key, template[i].klen);
+ else
+
* Herbert Xu | 2010-04-07 08:31:09 [+0800]:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:30:02PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Good point. All arc4 users don't care about return value of setkey so I
think that I just change void to int add the check for the valid key
length.
Actually, how about
* Pavel Roskin | 2010-04-07 02:19:55 [-0400]:
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 19:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
+module_init(arc4_init);
+module_exit(arc4_exit);
I'm feelings uneasy about using the same module init/exit functions
names in arc4blk.c and arc4cip.c.
Even though it doesn't
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:23:00AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
So arc4_setup_iv() should do what the internal arc4_ivsetup() does and
we change void to int and check the keysize in there right? The problem
here is that we are bounded to *this* implementation of the algorithm
and
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 02:29:53AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Can we avoid those special cases? If the goal is to make arc4
compliant with the crypto API, this looks like a step in a wrong
direction.
The same applies to many other changes in the series.
I do realize that the original
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 10:29 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Pavel Roskin | 2010-04-07 02:19:55 [-0400]:
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 19:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
+module_init(arc4_init);
+module_exit(arc4_exit);
I'm feelings uneasy about using the same module
